I'm no expert, but from what I understand etymological H's from Latin are all dropped and not written, perhaps because H was silent in Vulgar Latin. But h does appear in some loan words and due to the phonic evolution of some words.

Hello, there! What things are you saying???!!! The 'h' in my language is the same [h] as in 'hillarious' or 'hey' or 'high', the initial [h], oir 'hip', 'hire', etc., want more??? For those who have this sound in their language, do not be afraid to pronounce it when you see it!
You said something about 'x', I think, if I am not mistaken, that 'x' from Greek is pronounced in several situations [h].
Please, ask questions about Romanian in our thread if you have things to clarify. There are intelligent people who will answer your questions.

Hello, there! What things are you saying???!!! The 'h' in my language is the same [h] as in 'hillarious' or 'hey' or 'high', the initial [h], oir 'hip', 'hire', etc., want more??? For those who have this sound in their language, do not be afraid to pronounce it when you see it!
You said something about 'x', I think, if I am not mistaken, that 'x' from Greek is pronounced in several situations [h].
Please, ask questions about Romanian in our thread if you have things to clarify. There are intelligent people who will answer your questions.

Click to expand...

So the sound sample from wikimedia that I provided does not represent the common Romanian pronunciation of the word "hai"?

Hello, there! What things are you saying???!!! The 'h' in my language is the same [h] as in 'hillarious' or 'hey' or 'high', the initial [h], oir 'hip', 'hire', etc., want more??? For those who have this sound in their language, do not be afraid to pronounce it when you see it!
You said something about 'x', I think, if I am not mistaken, that 'x' from Greek is pronounced in several situations [h].
Please, ask questions about Romanian in our thread if you have things to clarify. There are intelligent people who will answer your questions.

Click to expand...

This can't be completely right, at least to my knowledge not, and you should know that. /h/ is pronounced [x] in word-final position or before consonants (as in hrană), and (as far as I know) even becomes [ç] before an if the word ends in -hi.

So the correct pronunciation of "Hey", following Romanian pronunciation, would of course be /heɪ/, but the pronunciation of hranăshould be /xranə/. And thinking of a word with -hi at the end, I can come up with cehi, which would then be pronounced as /t͡ʃeç/. I don't know about Romanian dialects and my knowledge of Romanian (at least grammar-wise) is fairly limited, but I'm 99% sure that [h] is not always pronounced [h].

Then, it means that 99% you are wrong. The group of letters 'che' or 'chi' is pronounced [ke] or [ki], as in: 'chiar' [kiar], 'chestor' [kestor], 'chimie' [kimie], 'chestie' [kestie], 'cherestea' [kerestea], etc. That's it!
Once again, we have: 'hrană', ' hidos', 'hilar', 'ceh' or the plural ' cehi', 'har', 'heleșteu', 'hortist', 'harababură', 'stih', 'tehnic', all these, no matter position of 'h', no matter vowel or consonant before or after 'h', all pronounced the sound [h] for the letter 'h'!
On the other hand, [x] is for: Rex, Texas, Xerox, mix, pix, raze - X. None Romanian! 'X' is borrowed and we keep it unchanged.

Then, it means that 99% you are wrong. The group of letters 'che' or 'chi' is pronounced [ke] or [ki] , as in ' chiar' [kiar], 'chestor' [kestor]. That's it!
Once again, we have: 'hrană', ' hidos', 'hilar', 'ceh' or the plural ' cehi', 'har', 'heleșteu', 'hortist', 'harababură', 'stih', 'tehnic', all these, no matter position of 'h', no matter vowel or consonant before or after 'h', all pronounced the sound [h] for the letter 'h'!

Click to expand...

Who said anything of the letter combination 'che' or 'chi'? And if what you say is true, then I wonder why Wikipedia makes mention of these allophones and why I hear a clear [ç] at the end of cehi, when entered into Oddcast's Text-to-Speech program. Both sources might not be 100% reliable, but I still find it quite curious. Of course, you as a native speaker should know better, but still. Even the Romanian Wikipedia article on Romanian phonology (Fonologia limbii române) makes mention of [ç] and [x] in the very same positions I mentioned.

Hi,
Perhaps Irinet mistakenly thinks [x] is the sound [ks], which it is absolutely not.
the sound [x] is a velar sound, which is the realisation of the letter H in Romanian, according to wikipedia.
It seems that Romanian does not have the sound [h], which is why it may sound close to [x] to a Romanian ear, and perhaps many Romanian speakers cannot tell the difference.
Irinet probably did not notice that the pronunciation of the English words «hilarious», «hey» or «high» (with a phonetical [h]) involves a sound that is somewhat different from the Romanian H, that is why he says that the Romanian H is pronounced [h].

The truth must be :
Romanian H is pronounced like [x] (sometimes like [ç])
English H is pronounced like [h], but a Romanian ear is not really competent to tell a difference.
Romanian X is pronounced like [ks], as expected.

Hi,
Perhaps Irinet mistakenly thinks [x] is the sound [ks], which it is absolutely not.
the sound [x] is a velar sound, which is the realisation of the letter H in Romanian, according to wikipedia.
It seems that Romanian does not have the sound [h], which is why it may sound close to [x] to a Romanian ear, and perhaps many Romanian speakers cannot tell the difference.
Irinet probably did not notice that the pronunciation of the English words «hilarious», «hey» or «high» (with a phonetical [h]) involves a sound that is somewhat different from the Romanian H, that is why he says that the Romanian H is pronounced [h].

The truth must be :
Romanian H is pronounced like [x] (sometimes like [ç])
English H is pronounced like [h], but a Romanian ear is not really competent to tell a difference.
Romanian X is pronounced like [ks], as expected.

Click to expand...

Sounds plausible, but still, [h] most definitely exists. It's mentioned in Romanian's consonant table and I hear it in the word 'rahat', that Irinet provided. The problem here might be that they're varying pronunciations of just one written letter, which could cause some confusion. Just the other day, we had a discussion on the English word 'human' being pronounced with [ç], which it clearly is, but it doesn't seem to be all that obvious.

On the other hand, [x] is for: Rex, Texas, Xerox, mix, pix, raze - X. None Romanian! 'X' is borrowed and we keep it unchanged.

Click to expand...

Fred_c is right. You misunderstand the meaning of the sign [x]. The sound you hear in the sound file in #1 is a [x] and definitely not a [h]. Can you tell us, if you think this pronunciation of the word "hai" is correct?

Sounds plausible, but still, [h] most definitely exists. It's mentioned in Romanian's consonant table and I hear it in the word 'rahat', that Irinet provided. The problem here might be that they're varying pronunciations of just one written letter, which could cause some confusion. Just the other day, we had a discussion on the English word 'human' being pronounced with [ç], which it clearly is, but it doesn't seem to be all that obvious.

Click to expand...

Yes. According to text book the allophonic distribution of /h/ is as follows:
[h] - syllable onset except in front of a consonant or
[ç] - syllable onset in front of [j] or [x] - syllable onset in front any consonant except [j] or in syllable coda

I don't speak Romanian so I can only tell what I read. According to these rules, the pronunciation of "hai" in #1 should be wrong: it should be [h] and not [x]. That's why I asked Irinet whether he considers it correct.

Sounds plausible, but still, [h] most definitely exists. It's mentioned in Romanian's consonant table and I hear it in the word 'rahat', that Irinet provided. The problem here might be that they're varying pronunciations of just one written letter, which could cause some confusion. Just the other day, we had a discussion on the English word 'human' being pronounced with [ç], which it clearly is, but it doesn't seem to be all that obvious.

Click to expand...

This is true, but it doesn't change the substance, i.e. as the Romanian "ear" probably does not distinguish the difference between [h] and [x], the pronounciation of h can vary between [h] and [x], possibly [ç], according to its position, without causing any misunderstanding or changing the meaning of the word. In intervocalic position it may be easier to pronounce/articulate a sound nearer to [h] than a clear [x], that's why [rahat]. But I think that the pronounciation [raxat] might be also correct, but this is rather a question for a native Romanian ....

You may be talking from IPA. I know for a fact that we do possess the sound [h] or [hî] and we do not have that [x] or the [c] - i cannot write the correct symbol- . If we had had peculiar instances with the sound, we would have been taught about them in school. We simply read and pronounce as we write in most of the cases. Mr.! H is not a problem in our language. Again, 'cehi' may be phonetically written as you say but the sounds you describe must be from IPA. We do not do this way. For instance, we have the word 'ceara' and we phonetically write [čara], yes? Ok. What it would be the phonetic transcript of cehi - [čex]?!

This is true, but it doesn't change the substance, i.e. as the Romanian "ear" probably does not distinguish the difference between [h] and [x], the pronounciation of h can vary between [h] and [x], eventually [ç], according to its position, without causing any misunderstanding or changing the meaning of the word. In intervocalic position it may be easier to pronounce/articulate a sound nearer to [h] than a clear [x], that's why [rahat]. But I think that the pronounciation [raxat] might be also correct, but this is rather a question for a native Romanian ....

Click to expand...

Irinet is probably not familiar with IPA, therefore misunderstanding the matter at hand.

I believe that the Romanian "ear" can distinguish the different sounds, but I guess it needs some kind of linguistic training and/or exposure to other languages.
I unquestionably hear the difference (taken the examples from the Romanian Wikipedia):

You may be talking from IPA. I know for a fact that we do possess the sound [h] or [hî] and we do not have that [x] or the [c] - i cannot write the correct symbol- . If we had had peculiar instances with the sound, we would have been taught about them in school. We simply read and pronounce as we write in most of the cases. Mr.! H is not a problem in our language. Again, 'cehi' may be phonetically written as you say but the sounds you describe must be from IPA. We do not do this way. For instance, we have the word 'ceara' and we phonetically write [čara], yes? Ok. What it would be the phonetic transcript of cehi - [čex]?!

Click to expand...

Sorry Irinet but this is just not true! The problem here is that many Romanians have limited knowledge about their own language - unfortunately, a common trait for many people regadless of nationality.

I thought that we are talking about the Romanian sounds and not about IPA.

Click to expand...

IPA is a system to describe sounds in any language. You can use IPA to describe sounds [...] or to describe phonemes /.../. You mean phonemes not sounds. "Cehi" is phonemically /ʧehi/ and phonetically [ʧeçʲ].

IPA is used for every language - there are no "my" sounds and "your" sounds.
There's a common misconception amongst Romanians that "we pronounce it just like we write it" and that's just not true, if it ever was.

Romanian linguists use the sounds mentioned in this thread to designate the subtle (and obvious) nuances of "h". Are you questioning their studies, their books, their essays?

Thank you berdf for the correction - sometimes I get confused when discussing phonemes and sounds, but I'm back on track!

Please, do provide titles of books or essays on this topic written by Romanian linguists that you know.
It's not my intention to iritate anyone here. I thought we could talk and solve midunderstandings. If I thought wrongly, I will no longer be writing here.

Phonemes are your and mine; sounds are everyone's. ... More or less at least; looking at it more in detail, it gets more complicated but as a general guideline, this is how they are distinguished.

A more precise way of looking at it is:
Sound: That what can be distinguished in a language, if you just listen carefully enough. I.e. distinctions speakers consistently do.
Phoneme: that what really is distinguished by speakers. I.e. distinctions which matter in order to identify words.

Please, do provide titles of books or essays on this topic written by Romanian linguists that you know.
It's not my intention to iritate anyone here. I thought we could talk and solve midunderstandings. If I thought wrongly, I will no longer be writing here.

The list is long (and can be made even longer if we include foreign linguists). I don't want you to abstain from posting your opinions and providing the forum with input, but please don't start making absolutist declarations which you can't sustain especially when being provided with concrete examples by other foreros. Be humble and reflective (referring to "my" sounds "your" sounds nonsense).

After attempting to say [raxat], I've come to the conclusion that it must be incorrect You know you're saying it wrong when you start sweating trying to pronounce it with a [x]

Click to expand...

I can prounounce [raxat] also without sweating , because in Slovak there is a clear difference between [x] and [h], and both can be found also in intervocalic position (e.g. páchať and váhať). Now my question is, if the pronounciation of /h/ is given only by it's position or it can really differ also according to the original pronounciation in case of a loanword (as you suggest it in case of rahat) ?

Since it is a loanword from Turkish, I think that the Turkish pronunciation was loaned as well (in Turkish [ɾɑ'hɑt]).

Click to expand...

In other words, if the pronounciation of /h/ differs according to the original pronouciation, then, at least in theory, we could speak about two phonemes represented by the same letter ... Or not?

You are saying that [x] is a phonemean allophone of 'h' in specific situations.

Click to expand...

That is the idea. You just got the terminology wrong: "Allophones" are different sound used in specific situations to represent the same phoneme. The Romanian phoneme /h/ has three allophones, [h], [x] and [ç].

If that's so, and of course you're right, our linguists may have used IPA when talking to allophones of 'h'. However, I could not find any specific discussion on these three allophones of 'h' in the books about Linguistics that I have.
I am sorry that my questioning and my arguments have been considered as possessing the absolute truth. I am not that kind of interlocutor.
Thank you for your patience! I shall continue to dig deeper on the subject.
<...>

If that's so, and of course you're right, our linguists may have used IPA when talking to allophones of 'h'. However, I could not find any specific discussion on these three allophones of 'h' in the books about Linguistics that I have.
I am sorry that my questioning and my arguments have been considered as possessing the absolute truth. I am not that kind of interlocutor.
Thank you for your patience! I shall continue to dig deeper on the subject.
<...>

Click to expand...

The problem is that when it comes to describing the sounds of speech in a given language there is no end to it. Those of us who write using alphabets tend to think of the smallest segments of speech as consisting of what we refer to as vowels and consonants each with a distinct identity. However, spectrographic analysis of speech show that in continuous speech any segment is influenced by what comes before it and after it. So, if, for example, you have an utterance [vowel x - consonant - vowel y] and you remove from the spectrogram the parts showing the vowels what is left my in fact indicate that the consonant was preceded by vowel x and followed by vowel y. No existing system of writing goes anywhere near being truly phonetic in the sense that it describes with accuracy how words or parts of words are actually pronounced. Further, no system of phonetic notation designed to be of practical use in representing speech can be wholly accurate even if it shows more than a typical alphabet.

Alphabetic writing systems described as "phonetic" are more correctly described as "phonemic". When using the IPA the transcription is either "broadly phonemic" or "narrowly phonetic" without there necessarily being a hard and fast distinction between the two and the degree of "broadness" or "narrowness" depending on how much accuracy is considered desirable. In English there is no phonemic distinction between aspirated and unaspirated consonants. However, some consonants are aspirated in certain positions. No English dictionary will indicate where this aspiration occurs.

You will find different definitions of phonemes. It may conveniently, if only provisionally, be defined as a sound or collection of similar sounds which serve to differentiate one word from another in a given language. The word "given" is important because what are phonemes in one language may be allophones in another. In English /s/ and /z/ are distinct phonemes because "bus" and "buzz" are different words. In Spanish, however, /z/ is an allophone of /s/. There are no words in Spanish which depend on the distinction between /s/ and /z/. /s/ is realised as /z/ before a voiced consonant. In Arabic /h/ and /x/ are distinct phonemes.

Where any phoneme is realised as different allophones in a given language it is quite true, as suggested above, that native speakers may be quite unaware of it. I think the reason for it has a lot to do with the writing systems. Even for a language with a complex orthography, where symbol to sound correspondence is polyvalent, there is a tendency for native speakers to associate each letter of the alphabet with a particular sound, and indeed, to go further and assume that the language has no sounds for which it has no symbol (symbol here including digraphs). So, for English, <th> may be thought of as representing only one sound and /ʒ/ may not be thought of as existing at all.

In this thread there is a suggestion that /h/ may be realised as /ç/. Another thread suggests the same happens in English, something I have yet to be convinced is the case, though I can see that something is going on. The thing is that /hj/ and /ç/ are not that far apart and different phoneticians may hear slightly different things or analyse them differently. /h/ is something of an odd sound anyway because it has no fixed place of articulation. Accordingly if the articulation is velar it comes over as /x/ and if palatal as /ç/.

Alphabetic writing systems described as "phonetic" are more correctly described as "phonemic". When using the IPA the transcription is either "broadly phonemic" or "narrowly phonetic" without there necessarily being a hard and fast distinction between the two and the degree of "broadness" or "narrowness" depending on how much accuracy is considered desirable. In English there is no phonemic distinction between aspirated and unaspirated consonants. However, some consonants are aspirated in certain positions. No English dictionary will indicate where this aspiration occurs.

Click to expand...

It is a bit more complex. Phonemic distinction may not only be broader than phonetic ones but simply different. Phonemic distinctions have more to do with perception then with physical realities, like in the stops you mentioned. The perceived distinction is between voiced and unvoiced though it can be demonstrated that in initial stops 90% of English speakers don't use voicing at all. The distinction relies on aspiration and energy, i.e. the speaker says [t] and [tʰ] and the listener hears /d/ and /t/. The same is true for "bus" and "buzz". Many speakers (i.e. that lady from the US here) say [pɐs] and not [pɐz] for "buzz". The measurable difference is mainly in relative phone lengths and energy.

That is language dependent. If your language allows [ç] as realization of /hj/ then they sound similar, otherwise not. For my, [ç] and [hj] do not sound similar and I never heard any Engish speaker pronounce "human" with [hj] but very often with [ç]. You could ask the question, if it is really [ç] or rather [j̥] (if you can't see the discritics, it is a voiceless [j]; the difference between [ç] and [j̥] is fricative vs. approximant); but that's detail.

I listened to some more Romanian and I think my conclusion is that different pronunciations can occur not only by different speakers or different words. For example, in the song "Habar n-ai tu" by Nicolae Guta (I don't know if I can link to a video here) I noticed he pronounces the word "Habar" in at least 3 different ways. I also listened to a young Romanian woman saying the word "Hai" (the one I mentioned in the beginning) and noticed she pronounces it as a very clear [h].